The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-07-17

sans unlawful purpose, unlawfully induced and
procured him. the said Allen Hisey, to unlawful
" omit and neglect to safely keep said tally pa
per, poll list, aud certifcate In the possession
and custody Of him. the said Allen Hisey, in
spector IS aforesaid. ana oy sA.d unlawful
as inspector as aforesaid, 70 surrender and de-
liver to and into the possession OF the said
Samuel E. Perkins and permit him, the said
Samuel E Perkins, to take and have the pos
session and custody OF said taly-paper poil-list
and certificate and the said tally-papers TO then
and there unlawfully mutilate, alter. forge and
change, before the said tally-paper. poll-lst and
and certificate hsd been returned to and can
vassed and estimated by the board OF canvas
sers of the said election OF the county OF Marion
aforesaid he the said Samuel E. Perkins not
being then and there officer Of said election,
ana not then and there being person author
lied by the laws Of the State Of Indiana to have
possession and custody Of said tally paper. poll
list and certificate aforesaid, contrary to the
form Of the statute Of the United States and
against the peace and dignity Of the United
The second count in that indictment charges a
similar offense by the same defendants in
Second precinct Of the Twenty third ward of
the city,tat which election Lorenz Schmidt was
supervisor
The third count charges in similar language Z
than Counselmanl in respect to an election
the same day in the Second precinct of the
Fourth ward, at which election said Counselman
WAS inspector.
There is another Indictment in the same court
against Coy alone. charging like offense
in respect to the election on the same day in tho
Third precinct Of the Thirteenth ward, at which
election Matter was inspector.
1t is thus seen that the defendants and others
are charged with having conspired and confeder-
ated to induce. counsel, procure and advise
inspector of an election at which Representa-
tive in Congress was voted for to unlawfuly
neglect and omit to perform DUTY required by
the laws of the State of Indiana touching that
election-that duty being to safely keep in his
possession and custody tho tally papers, poll
1:-A- - - A.
effect the object of that conspiracy one Of the
defendants, Perkins, unlawfully advised and
procured the inspector to deliver him the said
papers that they might be altered, forged or
changed.
Do the things charged against the defendant
constitute an offense against the United States,
without reference to the nature of the altera-
tions or the forgeries supposed to have been
committed by the defendant
By Section $40 of the Revised Statutes Of
the United States it is made a crime for two
more persons to conspire to commit offense
against the United States. and lone more of
such parties do any act to effect the object of
the conspiracy"
By Section 55II Of the Revised Statues of the
United States it is provided as follows If, at
any election for Representative or Delegate in
any manner with any officer Of such election in
the discharge Of his dusies or by any such
means, other unlawful means, iEduces any
officer of an election, officer whose duty it is
to ascertain, announce, or declare the result of
any such election thereto, to violate or refuse to
comply with his duty or any law regulating the
advises any such oficer to p do any act
hereby made crime, omit to do any duty
the omission Of which is hereby made crime.
or attempt to do SO. he shall be punished" etc.
That the persons mentioned in the various in
dietments as inspectors of election were law
fully in the discharge Of the functions appertain-
ing to that position is conceded in argument and
issaptly alleged in the Indictment It is also not
denied and is entirely clear, from the statutes Of
the State, to be hereafter examined in detail.
that each one OF these inspectors was under
duty to give or make certificate document or
evidence in relation to such election in the
spective precincts referred to. Each of such in
spectors who violated refused to comply with
his duty or any law regulating the same was,
according to the express words of the statutes,
guilty of a crime. 1t is equally clear that the
United States if he aided, counseled. procured
advised the inspector to violate refuse TO
comply with his duty or any law regulating he
same.
By Section 5515 it is provided: every officer
of an election at which any Representative
Delegate in Congress is voted for. whether such
under any law authority of the United States.
or by under any State, territorial, district,
municipal law or authority, who neglects or re-
fuses to perform any duty in regard to such
election required of him by any law of the
United States or of any State or territory there
of; or who violates any duty so imposed; or who
knowingly does any acts thereby unauthorized,
with intent to affect any such election the
suit thereof, shall be punished as prescribed in
Section 5511."
It is to be observed that the question of sin
tent" with which the officer acts, omits to act,
in respect to said election, is made element in
determining the existence of the crime whore he
knowingly does any acts thereby Unauthorized"
that is, unauthorized by the law of the United
states under which ne may act. or by the law Of
the State or Territory under whose authority he
is officer OF election. Upon the face of that
section distinction is plainly made between the
neglect non performance of whatever may be
DUTIES in regard to such election and the de-
inf ffn~i
So far as the inspector had any duty imposed
upon him by law in regard to the
election, he commits an offense against
the United States simply by the neglect
or refusal to perform that duty, or by any
violation OF such duty. We can very we'll
understand why Congress- foroore to make it q
election to do unauthorized acts except where
they were done with the intent to affect the elec
ton or tho results thereof. Whether such dis
tnction rests upon grounds Of sound public poll
cy is not for the court to determine. That
for congress. The national legislature had au-
thority to make such distinction and the duty
of the court is to respect its action in tho prem
Uses.
It is evident from what has been said that the
fundamental inquiry in the case is whether by
the law OF Indiana the alleged surrender by the
inspector of the tally papers. poll-list and certi
Gates Of election into the hands OF Perkins,
was violation Of any duty impoaed upon him
the alleged conspiracy to induce. the ir-
spector to violate to neglect that duty
was crime against the United States. and in
the other case. where Coy is the single defend
ant. the same result would happen.
Turning then to Chapter sc, entitled "Elec-
lions, /" of the Revised tatutes of Indiana.
fnd;that the inspector of an election in precinct
is one Of aboard of election" (Section 46S8).
When the votes of precnt shall be counted the
board of judges must make out certificate
der their hands. stating in writing the number or
votes each person has received and designating
the Office; ''and such certificate. together with
of the lists of voters and of the tally papera
shall be deposited with the inspector with
ono of the judges selected by tho board of
Judges" (Section 47l2( The inspec-
tor of each township precint. the
Judges OF election to whom the certificate
poll books and tally sheets shall have been de-
livered "shall constitute board of canvassers
who shall canvass and estimate the certificates,
poll lists and tally papers returned ny each mem.
Der of said beard. for watch purpose they shall
assemble at the court house the Thursday